2013 ORS § 426.130¹

Court determination of mental illness

• discharge

• release for voluntary treatment

• conditional release

• commitment

• assisted outpatient treatment

• prohibition relating to firearms

• period of commitment

(1) After hearing all of the evidence, and reviewing the findings of the examiners, the court shall determine whether the person has a mental illness and is in need of treatment. If, in the opinion of the court, the person:

(a) Is a person with mental illness based upon clear and convincing evidence, the court:

(A) Shall order the release of the person and dismiss the case if:

(i) The person is willing and able to participate in treatment on a voluntary basis; and

(C) May order commitment of the person with mental illness to the Oregon Health Authority for treatment if, in the opinion of the court, subparagraph (A) or (B) of this paragraph is not in the best interest of the person. If the court orders commitment under this subparagraph:

(D) Shall order that the person be prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm if, in the opinion of the court, there is a reasonable likelihood the person would constitute a danger to self or others or to the community at large as a result of the persons mental or psychological state as demonstrated by past behavior or participation in incidents involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence, or by reason of a single incident of extreme, violent, unlawful conduct. When a court makes an order under this subparagraph, the court shall cause a copy of the order to be delivered to the sheriff of the county who will enter the information into the Law Enforcement Data System.

(B) Order the person to participate in assisted outpatient treatment in accordance with ORS 426.133 (Assisted outpatient treatment). The court may continue the proceeding for no more than seven days to allow time for the community mental health program director to develop the persons assisted outpatient treatment plan.

(2) A court that orders a conditional release, a commitment or assisted outpatient treatment under this section shall establish a period of commitment or treatment for the person subject to the order. Any period of commitment ordered for commitment or conditional release under this section shall be for a period of time not to exceed 180 days. A period of assisted outpatient treatment shall be for a period of time not to exceed 12 months.

Where one examining physician stated that peti­tioner was probably suffering from mental illness and an­oth­er physician stated that peti­tioner suffered from a psychosis, without any further supporting evidence or explana­tion, this was not sufficient evidence upon which to base involuntary commit­ment order under this sec­tion. State v. Jepson, 48 Or App 411, 617 P2d 284 (1980)

A Court is not forbidden to commit a per­son simply because he has submitted himself voluntarily to treat­ment. State v. Kerrigan, 67 Or App 399, 678 P2d 271 (1984)

That per­son is mentally ill must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; that is, truth of acts asserted must be highly probable. State v. Waites, 71 Or App 366, 692 P2d 654 (1984)

Where defendant testified he would stay at YMCA or motel, had been eating at local hospital cafeteria, had some money and was looking for work and apart­ment and state did not provide any evidence to contradict such testimony, there was lack of clear and convincing evidence to show defendant dangerous to self or others or unable to provide for his basic needs. State v. Garibbo, 77 Or App 321, 713 P2d 671 (1986)

Where defendant made threats of violence to members of his family, treated his sister violently and roughly and two examining mental health professionals disagreed as to whether defendant was a danger to himself or others, defendants con­duct and state­ments provides clear and convincing evidence that he is dangerous to others. State v. Furnish, 86 Or App 194, 738 P2d 607 (1987)

Where mental health examiner examined appellant as part of commit­ment after attorney told examiner appellant did not wish to speak with him, and at trial appellant moved to suppress all evidence obtained during interview, and trial court denied mo­tion on de novo review excluding examiners report and observa­tions, remaining evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that statutory criteria for commit­ment was met. State of Oregon v. Haller, 95 Or App 752, 770 P2d 615 (1989)

Where only evidence of danger to himself was single automobile accident, order com­mit­ting appellant to Mental Health Division was reversed. State v. Siebold, 100 Or App 365, 786 P2d 219 (1990)

This sec­tion requires trial court to review findings of examining per­sons in determining whether per­son is mentally ill, but does not bind court to findings or require court to explain why it rejects those findings. State v. Evjen, 111 Or App 368, 826 P2d 92 (1992)

Court need not release per­son who provides evidence of willingness to participate voluntarily in treat­ment if court does not find that per­son will probably do so. State v. Doe, 116 Or App 18, 840 P2d 727 (1992)

Mental Illness Was Demonstrated By Clear and Convincing Evidence Where

Defendant was seriously malnourished when not under doctors care; she had no credible plan to acquire adequate nutri­tion in future, minimized danger faced from malnutri­tion and had history of failing to follow through with plans for care; she had no family or friends who would assist her. State v. Johnson, 117 Or App 237, 843 P2d 985 (1992)

Where court had ample evidence that delusional per­son would commit violent acts in future, specific acts of past violence were not re­quired to es­tab­lish that per­son was dangerous. State v. Bodell, 120 Or App 548, 853 P2d 841 (1993)

During disposi­tional phase of mental commit­ment pro­ceed­ing, mentally ill per­son bears burden of proving that he or she is willing to participate in voluntary treat­ment and will probably do so. State v. T.M., 229 Or App 325, 211 P3d 359 (2009)

Law Review Cita­tions

Notes of Decisions

Where defendant in involuntary commit­ment pro­ceed­ing asserted he was denied due process because investigator misled him as to how soon hearing would take place and did not take long enough to complete investiga­tion but defendant did not assert that investiga­tion report was inaccurate or incomplete, due process viola­tion was not es­tab­lished. State v. Pieretti, 110 Or App 379, 823 P2d 426 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Notes of Decisions

Prior to commit­ment there must be evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is mentally ill as defined. State v. ONeill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

The Oregon commit­ment statutes are not unconstitu­tional on the grounds of vagueness or as an invasion of privacy as protected by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amend­ments to the United States Constitu­tion. State v. ONeill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each
listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals
relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.